Take a 100% and 0% out of it and apply your 50% scale.

70% completed work
50% no work. Still the same percent avg. In order to pass. Is that fair?

Why stop there? Why not just make the ACT minimum 18 too? Where would this end?

The way our school handles missed assignments is as follows:

The parents get an e-mail from the school when an assignment is missed. It's usually because the child forgets to turn in homework. If they turn it in one day late, they lose 10% of the grade (i.e. 85% minus 10%). If it is turned in two days late, then they lose 20%. After a week, a zero is given.

My son has only had a few issues in the four years at the school and every case is where the teacher had incorrectly marked the assignment missing, meaning he had in fact turned it in. My daughter is less reliable and has had several instances. The excuses range from forgot to turn it in, to a miscommunication with the teacher, and a few cases where the teacher incorrectly marked it missing.

In any case, the parents are made aware, and the children have a chance to make it right with a notable penalty.

This registered sex offender I regularly converse with on the internet just said something really stupid

Having taught at two high schools that had this policy, I can tell you that it is in place mostly to allow the kids who do nothing to pass. (It's also a safeguard against the dickhead teachers who refuse to give kids who ordinarily work hard the occasional break.)

It's definitely allowed students of mine to pass. Passing is 60%. A 50% is damn near that. With zeroes, these students would not have passed.

Meanwhile, many of these kids are a drain on resources or teacher attention. Or they disrupt the class.

CPS already has a problem with promoting kids. Special Ed kids who have their own cadre of tutors (it's a good thing they have this, by the way) but who do nothing cannot be flunked. Why not? Because, the reasoning goes, we're giving the student three teachers per subject, and they still can't get him to pass? Principals just can't justify not passing a kid who gets all this extra help. So the teachers have to play a make-believe game and the students know how to milk it.

Give the good kids a break. (It's not arbitrary; you can clearly conventionalize it in many ways.) Flunk the other ones--and then explain how they can earn breaks themselves, try to motivate them to make some changes, and celebrate them when those changes become permanent.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

To go from a C to a D-? I'd say that is fair.
50% is still a failing grade in school.

If someone wants to not take the ACT and be able to claim a failing grade on it then go for it.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Dude you are way out of touch with the rapidly evolving trend in today's society. we are all victims with no control of our own destiny.

This registered sex offender I regularly converse with on the internet just said something really stupid

You can fail Sped kids but you'd better have all of your ducks in a row when you do. Most teachers pass Sped kids because they don't want push back if they fail them.

This registered sex offender I regularly converse with on the internet just said something really stupid

I get what you're saying. But things like coding are great skills to teach early. I wish my children's school offered more robust training in that area. Good coders are printing money because their skills are rare and valuable among the general American public. Most people in business have no clue how programming works or its limitations, and thus we have to overpay to get good coders to develop all sorts of applications.

You can't spur interest in coding without teaching the subject. We need to give children exposure to subject areas where there is a business need.

This registered sex offender I regularly converse with on the internet just said something really stupid

Yes it is.

When this is all over, which is not going to be for a while, Trump will be re-elected President.

Since some are hung up on the 2 assignments thing that I just did for simplicity.

Student A
0 70 70 70 70 70 70 0 70 70 = 560

Student B
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 = 600

Student A fails. Student B passes even though Student A clearly understands the subject much better and performed better 8/10 times. Change those misses to a 50 and suddenly the scores are a lot more in line with the reality of the situation.

Mathematically the argument is strong to not give a 0 and instead set a minimum that makes more sense.

By the time kids get to high school they think teachers are full of shit about retention and not graduating. You can fail every class in grammar school and be socially promoted all the way through.

That's why you end up with juniors in Algebra One and kids dropping out when they realize they are too far behind to graduate after a couple years of high school.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

At our company, we have lots of custom internally developed software. The majority of our coders are from overseas, Asia, Russia, and Eastern Europe. The problem is that language barrier. There are also cultural issues.

i have owned my own business and some dope that showed up every day was infinitely better than an asshole who only showed up when he felt like it.

I guess to simplify the whole thing it's simply a matter of "tough titty; do better". Life's not always fair. When the hell did this become some controversial opini....well it's not even an opinion, it's just plain fact.

I've always found it interesting that the Chinese educational system is widely celebrated in the U.S. China doesn't even attempt to educate the majority of its students. They only seek to educate the best and the brightest. This is the case even at the elementary levels. They begin distinguishing early and never look back.

The US is increasingly concerned about hurt feelings and offending people.

CPS is doing the same thing.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

True. Selective enrollments are destroying neighborhood schools.

Why do you think this is? Is it because of the schools scores go to shit without gifted students? Or is it because "normal" students are not exposed socially and academically to the better traits of gifted students?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

These super schools really seem to run against the usual idea of great education for all.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Why do you think this is? Is it because of the schools scores go to shit without gifted students? Or is it because "normal" students are not exposed socially and academically to the better traits of gifted students?

They have taken off in Chicago over the past 15 yrs. The number of applicants per available seat is something like 30 to 1 at Schools like Payton, Young, and North Side Prep. They also are located in your more affluent areas.

Even your selectives that aren't as high performing are considered about 2 steps ahead of your typical neighborhood school. Schools like Lindblom, Brooks, and King aren't as high performing as the aforementioned schools yet they have the selective designation. This means that they will pull students away from neighboring schools.

It is staggering the number of children that refuse to attend their neighborhood school. They have done studies and found that only about 10%- 15% of available students in some cases have chosen to attend their neighborhood school.

Selective enrollments were also constructed as a way of attracting wealthier residents to Chicago.

This registered sex offender I regularly converse with on the internet just said something really stupid

The "normal" students are only exposed in passing. The gifted and accelerated students stay in the same classmates every year.

This registered sex offender I regularly converse with on the internet just said something really stupid

These super schools really seem to run against the usual idea of great education for all.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

No guilt at all about sending Speeps Jr. to a selcetive enrollment school rather than a neighborhood public school.

Not really. Why should kids be held back from reaching their potential because the teacher has to spend half the class helping kids who don't get it? I could argue that putting "normal" kids in classes with students that have similar ability is more beneficial to that child.

This registered sex offender I regularly converse with on the internet just said something really stupid